Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Beyond 120 Days, No Right to File Written Statement – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, today underscored the non-negotiability of statutory time limits in commercial disputes. The case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan revolved around the issue of condoning the delay in filing a written statement in a loan default matter.

The Crux of Legal Point: At the heart of the judgment was the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Specifically, the matter concerned whether a delay beyond the statutorily stipulated 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute could be condoned.

Background and Factual Matrix: ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, approached the High Court challenging the Commercial Court’s decision that condoned the respondent's delay in filing a written statement. The dispute originated from a loan default by Chauhan, against whom the bank sought recovery. The bank's contention was based on the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in commercial disputes.

Justice Kaur delved into the case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day period for filing written statements in commercial disputes, as per Supreme Court directives in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The judgment scrutinized the correctness of service of summons and the implication of the mediation process on the filing timeline.

The Court observed the Commercial Court's oversight in its failure to rigorously examine the reasons for the delay. It stressed the need for adherence to prescribed timelines, highlighting the importance of speedy and efficient justice in commercial litigation.

Verdict: Overturning the Commercial Court's decision, the High Court directed that the respondent’s written statement, filed beyond the permissible period, should not be taken on record. This decision firmly reiterates the judiciary's stance on the sanctity of procedural timelines in commercial matters.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2024

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan

Latest Legal News